Hear Hear Plato! A life lived for the good of Man for that reason alone is a far more productive and honourable life than one lived in fear of punishment or in anticipation of reward after death and any actions that may have been caused by that belif. ------------------ Why?
It is easy not caring about some things. My life not being one of them. [This message has been edited by Onslaught (edited July 25, 2000).]
BS Plato! How do you even define good without God? You can't remember, everything's relative. See, this makes no sense to me...you want to argue morality and right and wrong as if it's defined by humans, when it goes directly against human nature and you know it. I mean excuse me but I don't "do good" out of fear of divine judgement anymore than you don't refrain from murdering someone out of fear of jail time. The whole basis of my faith is that I am a sinner, not that I'm not. The basis of YOUR faith is that you're not; that there is no such thing. And I think that's a ridiculous and illogical idea. And I do not in any way agree with you that thinking of yourself as some over-grown ameoba, some relatively intelligent animal (then again I can argue against that even) with opposable thumbs, could possibly foster an increased sense of value for your own life. The value of your life is measured by earthly things!!!! How can you say that? That it's defined by what the government, the law, other people's opinions, how much you own or have, where you live, what you do, the weather, what you think, what you know, what? And then look around at the world and at the universe and ask yourself, who cares???!! ------------------ You may think I'm a nut, but I'm fastened to the strongest bolt in the universe.
Lori, "How do you even define good without God?" HUH?? Are you saying an agnostic is incapable of doing something good or understanding that word? Or an atheist? I won't bother posting the dictionary definition of "good" for ya', but the reference to God is only for using "good" in place of "god" in phrases like "good gracious!" or "good grief!". YOU might have to bring God into the definition, but someone less pious than yourself shouldn't have trouble with that at all. I define good as anything beneficial and not harmful. Is hitting someone harmful? Yes - not good. Is donating money to charity harmful? No - good. Is stealing harmful? Yes - not good. What about stealing to feed your family when you have no other options? Well, Stealing - harmful, not good. Starving family, harmful, not good - choose lesser of 2 harms - stealing to feed family less harmful than letting family starve. Get it?
Lori ~ As far as I am concerned, there is no god. Yet, I still do good. How? And don't tell me it's because of god. I don't believe, so why would god contine to do good through me? I have my own beliefs, not His, of right and wrong and exercise those beliefs to the best of my ability. And I know that I am not alone in those beliefs, so how would you explain that?, without the benefit of god?
Without God, good is relative, and that is exactly what you're saying. You can't define good without God, it's relative. You just proved that. Hitting someone isn't a bad thing if they're trying to kill you is it? How about it you're boxing? Is donating money to a charity good if it doesn't put the money to "good" use? What about the relative "good" of each different charity in relation to one another? Which is the "most good"? What if the family that you're stealing the food from is starving too? Then what's good about that? You say that right and wrong are determined by what YOU think is beneficial or harmful. Beneficial or harmful to whom? And don't you understand that you are assuming that you have, or at least relying on yourself to have perfect knowledge? Don't the Chinese rationalize killing baby girls? Didn't Hilter argue that exterminating Jews was a "good" thing? Is the atomic bomb a good thing? What about abortion? Is that "right"? My brother says that eskimos would set a baby out on the ice to die if the family couldn't feed it without hurting the rest of the family members. Is that right? Yea, you make it sound so easy, and I guess it is to you...whatever feels good goes. I don't know...that just doesn't seem logical to me. I'm not trying to be bitchy either, it just really doesn't jive in my head. ------------------ You may think I'm a nut, but I'm fastened to the strongest bolt in the universe.
So you're saying that god tells you what's good and bad? Someone trying to kill me? Damn straight I'm going to hit them, twice! And kick 'em when he's down. Without hesitation. I'm not going to wait for god to tell me it's okay. Yes, donating money to charity is a good thing. What the charity does with that money afterwards is out of my control. I just have to hope that it is indeed being put to good use. Faith in my fellow man. What if the family you steal bread from is starving? God says it's okay, does that make it right? Yes, I do say what's right and wrong is determined by me. I'm the one I have to answer to. Unless I do wrong, then I answer to the authorities. 'Perfect knowledge'? Far from it. Belief in myself and the way I was raised. I'm not perfect, nor do I make any claims to be, but I try my best to do good on a daily basis and not to hurt others. But, unfortunately that happens sometimes. That's life. I don't know, I'm not Chinese. Yes, Hitler did rationalize that killing Jews was good. But history has judged him. The atomic bomb. That's a tough one. Living in the only country that has dropped a bomb on humans, I believe that it ended the war, thus ultimately saving lives. But as a whole, no I don't think thermo-nuclear weapons are a good thing. I'm pro-choice. Abortion is an option that serves a purpose. I don't necessarily like it, but that's not my call. I would have to agree with the eskimo idea then. Why endanger a family trying to feed a starving baby when the odds are high that it would probably die anyway. "the needs of the many..." And no, often it isn't easy. It can be a struggle. But I am my own man, and answer to such (that and my girlfriend Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!) I'm not taking your response as being bitchy. No worries there. I hope that I'm not coming acrss as an asshole, (shaddup MoonCat! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!) because that's not my intent. I am here only to learn PEACE!!
Okay, but don't forget, you asked!... Hitting someone isn't a bad thing if they're trying to kill you is it? - correct. How about it you're boxing? - that's not causing harm, if I'm boxing the other guy came into that ring specifically to box. Is donating money to a charity good if it doesn't put the money to "good" use? - nope. What about the relative "good" of each different charity in relation to one another? - each charity has it's own specific cause (or causes) it works for. Since nobody can fill the coffers of all charities, we must pick the one that seems best to us, or the one that relates best to us (ie. if my dad had cancer, I'd donate to cancer foundations, etc) Which is the "most good"? - Things to judge by: administrative expenses vs. actual charity done, reliability and trustworthiness of the administrators... What if the family that you're stealing the food from is starving too? - Then no, find someone else to steal from. Or try to pool what resources the two families can gather and see if you're better off together. "...whatever feels good goes" - Now, you KNOW that's not the case, why do you insist on putting it like that? You're a bright girl, you know the difference between doing "what feels good" and "what causes the least harm". Are you just trying to insult me, or what? The truth of the matter is that you probably live about the same way I do as far as these matters go. I know I don't have perfect knowledge, nobody does, and that includes you. The best thing either of us can do is try our best to cause the least amount of harm and the most amount of good in this world, right? You can pray to your God for guidance, but in the end it's Lori deciding if you hand some change to that beggar or if you kick him to the curb, right? It sounds easy just because it's horribly simplified for posting on a BBS. I don't just make flash decisions, flip a coin, or act without bothering to think or ponder the consequences of my actions. I research, I meditate, I try to put myself in everyone else's shoes, I try to divine the correct action to take. (Depending on the seriousness of the question, of course. I don't meditate on what to wear to work, for example.) And then I make my action, with full knowledge that if I AM screwing someone over the "spiritual laws", or karma, or whatever you want to call it, will screw me over right back.
Lori, First of all I would like to point out the difference between something objective and something subjective. An objective thing is something that is outside of any possible observer and can be checked by any possible observer and will result in the same outcome. The charge of an electron is a very good example of this. A subjective thing is something that is inside an observer and will result in a different outcome for an other observer. The beauty of the color blue is a nice example. This means once you find an observer for which a certain thing gives a different result then for an other observer you have something subjective. Claiming that something can be objective for one person and subjective for an other is therefore meaningless and wrong. By this definition God must be subjective for I don't believe in him and you do... On to morals. If you are saying that morals must stem from a supernatural being that enforced his law as being the morals that we know then you are in fact saying that morals are subjective since the agent that made them is too (given the above argument). I would like to point to our cousins the chimps, you see they have morals too. A very crude form of moral but they have a basic sens of right and wrong. For example orphans will be cared for and accepted by a caring mother, even orphans not of the same group. Once a rivaling male has accepted the rule of the leading male, he will not be bullied any more for trying to defy the boss. On the contrary he will find his place in the group and be a productive member. And don't forget the grooming which is probably the most important social behavior in which the chimps in a very friendly manner reassure themselves of each others support and kindness. These behaviors have nothing to do with instinct since they are social patterns who are thought to the baby chimps. Did god superimposed them to the chimps as well ? Then why are they left ignorant of him ? A more likely explanation is that the morals evolved just like the chimps themselves evolved out of the primordal soup that was present on our planet 3,5 billion years ago. The only reason we have more complex morals is that we have more complex brains. Did you know that certain brain diseases can change a persons morals in his or her own lifetime ? Because of a defect in the brain a person can turn from a loving, caring person into a cold, indifferent bully. How about that for objective morals ? ------------------ I err, therefore I exist !
MC, Ok, so are you saying then that you do believe in a divine right and wrong? An absolute truth regarding spiritual law which would define right vs wrong, or holy vs sinful, or good vs evil? I can't decide if you believe in an absolute truth of which you do not have complete understanding of, or if you believe that there is no such thing, but that YOU determine what is right and wrong and why. I'm just not sure if I've got your perspective or not. Ok Plato, Assume for one minute that God is real. Because He is. And my interaction with Him and the evidence in my life is real. Then sir, that would most definately be objective to me. Ok then, if you or others were to interact with God. He being the very same God, who is real, and has distinct "features". These people would then interact with Him and have evidence in their lives as well. Now the circumstances may be varied, but the being that we are interacting with is the SAME. Same qualities, same features, same characteristics, same law, same evidence. Which is very objective to them as well. Now, the part that is bending your brain is that I can't present objective evidence to someone else, and they can't present it to me, even though it's the same evidence from the same interaction with the same being! Now, if you want to blame someone, then blame the scientists...blame yourself! We who know God really couldn't care less if you ever get to "measure" Him with some instrument. We know Him, and that's good enough for us. But you know as well as I do that science ignores God and faith and religion and spirituality. They are threatened by it. Who knows, if some scientists actually did delve into the area of the supernatural, what they might find. Actually, there are those who do this, and they are usually ridiculed by their peers and scoffed at, and professionally ruined for having an open mind. You know though, it doesn't take a flippin' instrument Plato. If you want evidence, and you want to know Him, then just talk to Him! Pray, with sincerity, and ask Him! Gee, THAT'S DIFFICULT! It doesn't take a million dollar research grant, but it flippin' works already. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ------------------ You may think I'm a nut, but I'm fastened to the strongest bolt in the universe.
Lori, you are right of course that if God would be real, he would have objective properties that would be perceived the same by all observers. However, and you must admid this, this perceiving doesn't really happen the same for every one nog does it ? I mean in christianity alone there are more sects and divisions than stars in the sky (visible to the naked eye Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ) How can this be if there is an objective god out there of whom everyone can perceive his properties ? I don't really see how you can be so patronising regarding measuring devises ? After all they are just extensions of our own senses. Nothing wrong with that. The trouble is what you are talking about are emotions, this link with god is an emotional one and measuring emotions is of course impossible. It would be absurd to demand for a piece of 'hate' in a petridish so we can look at it under a microscope. However, this means that hate is a subjective thing. You see subjective doesn't mean it doesn't exist at all, it only means it exists by virtue of its reference or its carrier. Let's take the concept hate for a moment. Does it exist ? I 'm afraid so. Can I touch it ? Nope. Can I experience it ? Yep Can it exist on its own ? Nope. Hate needs people in order to experience it otherwise it would not exist. One can savely assume that 10 million years ago, earth was a virgin planet regarding emotions like hate and love. I am willing to assume that god is something very similar. It is real since it influences you and a lot of other peoples life but it is of a relative realness since it cannot exist without us humans thinking about it. The god concept is of course something much more complex and rich then hate, which is after all a plain emotion. This is the reason why god and love can be easily intertwined and sometimes even replaced by one another. ------------------ I err, therefore I exist !
Lori, It IS a tough thing to wrangle out. Let me try to use some examples, 'cause I'll be darned if I can explain it any other way. I don't think anything is purely good or purely evil. Nothing in nature is. (Another reason the Christian "pure good/pure evil" setup doesn't work in my head, but that's not my point at the moment...) Is the AIDS virus evil? I dunno, isn't it a life form of a sort just trying to survive? Is a major flood evil? Well, if people weren't so stupid as to build homes in a flood plain, this wouldn't even be a question. Floods were there first, we got in the way, we can't blame the flood for our stupidity. Are forest fires evil? No way man, some plants NEED forest fires to procreate. So, for each thing there is a positive and a negative. As humans, we focus on OUR perspective (of course) so we tend to think things like floods and forest fires are evil, terrible, when actually it's just a natural part of how the world works. Just like you're going to die, nothing evil about it, that's just the way it works. As we go through our lives, it is impossible not to cause harm. To live, we must take life from plants (or other animals for some of you Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ), we must consume water and energy. They key to a "good" life is to cause as little of this harm as possible. The universe and our planet requires a balance, everything moves in cycles and to keep those cycles flowing we can't get too far out of place in it. Just as we eat plants and consume energy, our wastes could fertilize the ground and spread seeds, we ought to be nomadic, so as to not impact one spot on this planet too much, and when we die our bodies return to the earth to feed a new generation of plant life, and maybe a scavenger or three. Obviously, this isn't how we live, I am of the opinion that mankind has lost it's way. But back to the point... I dunno if I'd call it a "divine" right and wrong, maybe more "in balance" and "out of balance". Not so much that God sat down and said, "okay, this is bad, this is good, this is bad, this is good...", but more like there is a way this universe is set up, and since the Gods are a part of the universe (as opposed to superior or seperate from it) they are subject to those balances as well. I guess I see it as less of a spiritual law and more of an almost mathematical thing. For each action, there IS an equal and opposite reaction, just like in physics. So if you do bad, something bad will happen to you, so you better try 'n do as good as you can. Just like you know jabbing a screwdriver in your eye will hurt, so the wise thing to do is not jab screwdrivers into your eyes. Pretty elementary when you lay it out like that, but that's an oversimplification. So I guess I'm saying there is pretty much an absolute right or wrong, but it is flexible to the circumstance. Which sounds totally contradictory, sigh. Like stealing - you can't say it's absolutely right or absolutely wrong until you know what the circumstances are. Or killing, or any number of things. But for each circumstance, there is a right choice and a wrong choice, the right choice being the one that causes the least amount of harm - to you, to anyone else involved, to the planet... Big, huh? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! One could become paralyzed trying to figure out all this stuff each time you gotta make a decision, huh? And it seems so complex and contradictory sometimes. "Brutal honesty" isn't a common phrase for no reason! It seems like telling the truth 100% of the time would be a "good" thing to do, but sometimes it can be very cruel - sometimes it's best to be evasive or at least tactful. You can be too kind to someone, and not kick them out on their butt when they really need it. "Tough love", etc. But as we grow up, hopefully we key into that "rightness" and are able to begin sailing along life without having to tromple those in your path. Some people manage to do this almost perfectly, others don't even bother to try - we lock those latter people up when we catch them, and kill some of 'em. Well, I've read this post, and I still haven't done a great job at explaining it, so you let me know if you were able to make heads or tails of all that. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
